Abstract
The current study aimed to explore primary schoolteacher’s emotional stress-coping strategy and to examine its possible relationships with stressful situations caused by pupils’ misbehaviours in Finland context. A total of 12 items in four subscales with second-order model was the most appropriate structure to understand teachers’ emotional coping strategy. In the student-related stressful situations, the most relevant emotional coping strategies were religion/mindfulness,social support from family members, and self-blame. In addition, when teachers use self-blame to acknowledge their stressful emotions, they use another emotional strategy simultaneously, and vice versa. Those results showed significance of future studies on understanding more effective emotional strategies for student-related stress and investigating how teachers use several types of emotional coping strategies coincidently.
Highlights
We developed a scale to clarify the kinds of emotional coping strategies Finnish teachers use, and examined the interrelationships with types of pupils’ misbehaviours
Based on the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) which is for expected skewed subscales (Muijs, 2011), seven more items in Positive Mind 1, Venting Emotion, and Substance Use were deleted
We found three of four emotional coping ways except for professional support were related with stress coming from pupils’ misbehaviours
Summary
Procedure and Participants After getting a permission from a municipality based on the national research integrity or ethics guidelines (TENK, 2012), headmasters of 20 schools located in the central area of Finland were requested to participate data collection via email. Note: WCQ = Ways of Coping Questionnaire; COPE = COPE Inventory; CISS = Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations - Situation Specific Coping; CSI = Coping Strategy Indicator; CSES = Coping Self-Efficacy Scale; CRI = Coping Responses Inventory; VE = Venting Emotion; SB = Self-Blame; PS = Professional Support; A = Avoidance; PM 1-3 = Positive Mind 1-3; SS = Social Support; RMS = Religion/Mindfulness Support; SU = Substance Use a Items were deleted. Based on the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) which is for expected skewed subscales (Muijs, 2011), seven more items in Positive Mind 1, Venting Emotion, and Substance Use were deleted Those strategies could mitigate Finnish teachers’ negative feelings, but it indicated that teachers do not use them in an emotional way (Westman, Hobfoll, Chen, Davidson, & Laski, 2005; Agabio, Campesi, Pisanu, Gessa, & France, 2016). To reach the model fit, we used indexes, such as Chi-Square test, Comparative Fit Index (CFI > .95), Tucker-Lewin Index (TLI > .95), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA < .6 or < .8) (Kline, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
